get_technical_indicators

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: volume indicators cause an extra network round-trip due to baostock limitations, and warmup is auto-prefetched to avoid nulls. This is rich detail beyond what annotations would typically provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose. While it includes technical details about volume indicators, these are valuable for transparency. The structure is logical but slightly verbose; a slightly more concise version could exist without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains return format (one row per day) and warmup behavior. However, it does not explicitly state the columns in the output (e.g., date, indicator values), which is a minor gap given no output schema. Overall, it is fairly complete for the complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It documents all four parameters: code, start_date (date format), end_date, and indicators (list of valid strings with default). This adds necessary meaning beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Calculate technical indicators for a stock' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_moving_averages by explaining the types of indicators and the data handling for volume indicators.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions the extra cost for volume indicators and the auto-prefetched warmup, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or recommend alternative tools (e.g., get_moving_averages for simple moving averages).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.